July 18, 2005

Observations about the observations

I have some comments on Peter's and Willa's observations.

First, I agree with Peter that keeping the reporting/feature-writing staff and the critical staff separate to whatever degree is possible should be the ideal. This was long the arrangement at the Times, but it began breaking down a couple of decades ago, and is only now being reconstructed, now that we have a dedicated music reporter. Even so, the critics still do features periodically. To the extent that we can choose to write about people whose work we actually admire, rather than whoever an editor sends us to talk to, this can be okay, particularly since we have the luxury of a staff, so that the person who wrote the feature won't then review the performance.

In terms of reporting, the separation is more critical. When I was freelancing for the Times, and writing only Sunday features, there was a good-cop/bad-cop dynamic with interviewees. In other words, you'd turn up, listen to the interviewee spout about what morons the critics were, and then, once they've got that off their chest, they consider you on their side and (whether that turns out to be the case) the rest is history. As a critic, it's entirely possible to trash someone one night and then call for a quote about a news story the next day -- that is, it's possible to summon the schizophrenia necessary for that -- but in my experience, it isn't always possible for the interviewees to do the same. There's no reason for them cooperate with you if they feel you've injured them, and I've had more than a few icy chats that probably would have yielded better information if I hadn't reviewed the person I was speaking with. A reporter who isn't a critic doesn't have this problem -- although boards and managements may be wary of them for other reasons.

Willa: the NYTimes Foundation contributes to lots of arts organizations, and sometimes their sponsorship is listed prominently in program books. I've never thought twice about saying the performance was substandard, if it was, and I've never heard from anyone at our foundation suggesting that we go easy on things they support. For that conflict to exist, the foundation would have to actually exert some sort of pressure. Are you saying that your paper's foundation does such a thing? Or are you simply saying that the mere existence of the foundation, and a knowledge of what it supports, leads to self-censorship? In which case, why should it? The success or failure of enterprises the foundation contributes to has no bearing on the business success of the (newspaper) corporation; it is purely a tax issue, isn't it?

Posted by akozinn at July 18, 2005 09:36 AM

COMMENTS

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember Me?
YesNo

Comments:

Tell A Friend

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

About...

What we're talking about Is there a fundamental difference in the ways music critics see their roles? Are European classical music critics different from American critics? Are there different expectations of London critics than New York critics? Between critics in the “second cities” of America and those of Europe? Consequently...
more

How this blog works We’ve asked 15 critics from the US, UK, Canada and Australia to face off in a discussion about how they do their jobs. The conversation will last from Monday, July 18-Friday July 22, 2005. The blog is a lead-up to this year's Aspen Music Festival Critics' Symposium, where Tim Page, Willa Conrad, Greg Sandow and Anne Midgette will be taking part in public panels. Reader comments to the blog...
more

Aspen Music Critics Event At the end of this blog (July 22-24), a group of four music critics gather at the Aspen Music Festival for a weekend of discussion.
AJ blog partner

Readers

Resources

Lebrecht: Why American Arts Journalism Is So Bad Norman Lebrecht doesn't think much of American arts journalism. "The failure to challenge is a fundamental flaw in US arts journalism. The tone in US arts coverage is uniformly respectful, uninquiring, inherently supportive." And how did this happen? Because there are few cities with multiple critical voices. "This monopoly places an unhealthy burden on critics. If theirs is to be the only voice to pronounce on a new show or the fate of an institution, they are obliged to wear a mantle of responsibility that is antithetical to good journalism. A critic is licensed to get it wrong from time to time. Restrict that license and the reviews grow safe and solemn. An era of incorporation fostered a pontifical tone in American arts criticism." La Scena Musicale 04/01/04

Director Weighs In On Critics Why isn't American theatre criticism more of a "companion piece" than a Consumer Reports verdict, wonders Anna Shapiro. "Two things baffle me and make me angry, and they are this: When somebody writes about a new play and says the play is beautiful; the production is beautiful; the performances are stunning; the directing is weak. That makes me angry. But not as angry as: The direction is beautiful; the production is wonderful; the actors are amazing; the play is weak. That makes even less sense to me." Chicago Tribune 07/03/05

Biting Back At Toothless Critics Why the thumbs up/down review has damaged critics' power to set agendas. ArtsJournal 03/14/01